Some years back, I wrote an article about whether Title VII's reasonable
accommodation provision is valid Section 5 enforcement legislation
abrogating state sovereign immunity (http://ssrn.com/abstract=476621).
Here's the conclusion:
"When Title VII's reasonable-accommodation provision was enacted
I agree that there might be Eleventh Amendment problems here, as
there may well be with regard to the Title VII religious accommodation
requirement, see Holmes v. Marion County Office of Family and Children, 349
F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003); but a statute could avoid them by allowing
What about Seminole Tribe?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:39 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academi
True, but not in Oregon, New York and California where the standard for
employer “undue hardship” is “significant cost and difficulty.”
Gregory W. Hamilton, President
Northwest Religious Liberty Association
5709 N. 20th Street
Ridgefield, WA 98642
Office: (360) 857-7040
Website: www.nrla.com
I don’t think Title VII does the work here — the undue hardship standard is so
de minimis as to be illusory in most cases where it would matter.
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Greg Hamilton wrote:
>
> From my vantage point in introducing, shepherding and helping to pass Idaho’s
> Free Exercis
Well, the court has said that accommodating religion is not an establishment .
. . .
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Ed Darrell wrote:
>
> How does Congress get around the first requirement of laws on religion, that
> "Congress shall make no law?"
>
> Interesting question, but like the compu
If the question is just of Congressional power, I would think
that the Commerce Clause would be more than ample – just as Title VII can apply
to commerce in labor (whether by government employers or private ones), so can
this hypothetical statute. (I think the proposed statute wo
Try the spending power. But why would Congress want to do this, rather
than leave it to each state? And if Congress did, why not include a
provision that would specify that the law does not apply to exemptions that
would cause significant harm to third parties?
On Monday, February 22, 2016, Steve
As Cutter v. Wilkinson unanimously held, laws that create
religious accommodations are not necessarily seen as “respecting an
establishment of religion” (though some particular accommodations might indeed
be unconstitutional establishments). You can agree with that conclusion or
From my vantage point in introducing, shepherding and helping to pass Idaho’s
Free Exercise of Religion Act of 2000, and in failing with both Alaska and
Oregon state Religious Freedom Restoration Act efforts over an 18-year period
since 1998 is mostly a political one, albeit a constitutional one
How does Congress get around the first requirement of laws on religion, that
"Congress shall make no law?"
Interesting question, but like the computer said in War Games, perhaps "the
only way to win is not to play."
Ed DarrellDallas
From: Steven Jamar
To: Law Religion & Law List
How might Congress draft a federal law that requires states to accommodate
religious beliefs so that state employees are free to refuse to perform tasks
that are contrary to their religious beliefs? We have the Boerne problems of
making a record and RFRA being held to be too much of a bludgeon.
12 matches
Mail list logo